Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) Program

Ministry of Agriculture &
Rural Development

Economic & Policy Research
Priorities 2011-2015
Priority Setting Workshop
Hanoi


6 The Next Steps 12
Attachments
1. Economic & Policy Research Priority Setting Workbook
2. Economic & Policy Research Priority Setting Data and Information Sheets
3. PowerPoint Presentations

Economic & Policy Research Priorities
1
1 Introduction
The Government of Vietnam’s (GoV) Socio-Economic Plan outlines the government’s
expectations for agriculture and rural development. The Agriculture Sector GDP in 2009
was 220 trillion VND, approximately 18% of total GDP. Agriculture's share of GDP has
steadily declined GoV and while the GDP increased by 5.3% during 2009, the agriculture
GDP increased by only 1.8%. Never-the-less government expects GDP growth in the
agriculture sector to increase annually by 3 – 5 %.
Most international commentators credit policy changes (e.g. doi moi) as having the most
significant impact enabling Vietnam to move from a net importer of food to a significant
exporter and a key driver in the outstanding reduction in poverty, especially rural
poverty. Research has also played a significant role in these gains, but the majority of
research funded has been in technologies associated with production improvement. Over
recent years there has been little funding for research into the impacts of agriculture
policies or on the more empirical research associated with development of policy advice
to government.
The opportunities for agriculture economic and policy research to contribute to
continually improve efficiency, effectiveness and agriculture contribution to the national
GDP are increasing. There is general recognition that good economic analysis and good
agriculture policies are likely to set the operational framework for optimizing economic,
social and environmental benefits from research. However there is limit to the research
resources (human, financial and infrastructure) that can be directed towards research
design, implementation and outreach. Because of the limit on resources it is necessary

, which has been
adapted to conditions in different developing countries. The conceptual framework is
shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Research Priority Framework The Methodology was detailed in a Workshop Workbook (Attachment 1) supported by
EPRO Data and Information Sheets (Attachment 2).

The workshop aim was to create ownership through developing a consensus between
users and providers of research for the research priorities. Nearly sixty stakeholders,
representing researchers and research managers, extension workers, universities and the
private sector enterprise and researchers participated in the workshop.

The workshop process required individual participants to score each Economic & Policy
Research Opportunity (EPROs) for each of the 4 criteria (Potential Benefits, Ability (or
constraints) to Capture Benefits, Research Potential and Research Capacity) before they
attended the workshop. Working groups, facilitated by trained and IPSARD staff 1
Foster, R.N., Linden, L.H., Whiteley, R.L., and Kantrow, A.M., Improving the Return on R & D, in
‘Measuring and Improving the Performance and Return on R & D’ IRI, New York (originally published in
Research Management January 1985.
Economic & Policy Research Priorities
3
discussed the reasons behind individual priority scores and each participant was invited to
rescore if they desired. Individual Scoring Sheets were collected and entered in an
EXCEL Spreadsheet.

Sheets was outlined. Key staff from IPSARD were nominated as lead authors for
preparation of draft Data and Evaluation Sheets. CARD provided extensive comments
on the draft Data & Evaluation Sheets and through several rounds of feedback, editing,
collection of additional data and analysis the final EPRO Data & Evaluation Sheets were
at the standard required for the priority setting workshop.

The Seven EPROs are:
EPRO 1 Commodity Research, Market Analysis, Forecast & Policy Analysis
EPRO 2 Natural Resources & Rural Environment Management
Economic & Policy Research Priorities
4
EPRO 3 Research, Technology Development and Transfer Delivery Systems for
Agriculture and Rural Development
EPRO 4 Social Security for Rural People and Sustainable Poverty Reduction
EPRO 5 Climate Change
EPRO 6 Rural Development
EPRO 7 Impact of International Economic Integration and Market Access to the
Vietnam Agricultural Trade
2.3.4 Data & Evaluation Sheets and Workshop Instructions
Data and Evaluation Sheets for each of the 7 EPROs were prepared as a separate
publication (Attachments 1 and 2) and distributed to invitees prior to the workshop. The
methodology was outlined and each workshop participant was asked to read all workshop
material and make a preliminary score for each of the four evaluation criteria.
2.4 Workshop Format
2.4.1 Workshop Venues and Format
One workshop was facilitated at the Bao Son Hotel, 50 Nguyen Chi Thanh, Hanoi on
July 29
th
2010.
2.4.2 Workshop Chairpersons and Group Facilitators

5. Working group discussion on reasons for high and low scores for Potential
Benefits and reassessment of preliminary scores by each participant
6. Collection of individual scoring sheets and entry of individual scores for Potential
Benefit for each EPRO.
7. Repetition of steps 2 – 5 for each of the remaining evaluation criteria (Ability to
Capture, Research Potential and Research Capacity
8. Presentation of workshop results to participants
9. Presentation on Proposed Research Topics for 2011.
10. Outline of Next Critical Steps in the development of research priorities
3 Workshop Results
3.1 Return on Investment
Return on investment is the product of attractiveness and feasibility. The relative return
on investment in each area of research opportunity is summarised below

28
Workshop Output – Return on
Investment
1. COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET
ANALYSIS & FORECAST
2. NATURAL RESOURCES & RURAL
ENVIRONMENT
3. RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER
4. SOCIAL SECURITY &SUSTAINABLE
POVERTY REDUCTION
5. CLIMATE CHANGE
6. RURAL DEVELOPMENT
7. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
INTEGRATION AND MARKET ACCESS
RETURN FROM INVESTMENT IN EACH AREA

feasibility and indicates that this is an area where a significant increase in
resources available to undertake the analysis and forecasting and to provide to
both the GoV and the private sector is likely to improve the overall impact of
agriculture economic and policy research.
• Rural Development (EPRO 6) was also regarded as having a relatively high return
on investment even though the attractiveness was similar to EPROs 2, 3, 4, &7.
EPRO 6 is in an area where MARD has primary responsibility, even though many
National Target Programs (targeting poverty) managed by other Ministries and
Agencies have targeted the poverty aspects of rural development through support
for rural infrastructure and to a lesser extent agriculture production inputs. The
MARD initiative of Tam Nong is likely to increase the attractiveness of economic
and policy research into rural development and therefore may increase the return
on investment.
Medium Return on Investment
• This group of EPROs includes Natural Resources & Rural Environment (EPRO
2), Research, Technology Development & Transfer (EPRO 3) Social Security &
Sustainable Poverty Reduction (EPRO 4) and International Economic Integration
and Market Access (EPRO 7). The attractiveness ranking for EPRO 2, Natural
Resources and Rural Environment was slightly higher than the other three, with a
higher ranking in potential benefit partially offset but the view that adoption of
economic & policy research in this EPRO is likely to be quite difficult.
• Interestingly although MARD has a role in all of these EPROs, they all require
integration with other Ministries such as MoNRE, MoST, MoLISA and Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. Economic & Policy Research by MARD is a valuable input
that will provide a rural perspective on the likely impacts of these broad areas.

Low Return on Investment
• EPRO 5 – Climate Change was ranked by most participants as having the lowest
return on investment. However this result could be interpreted as the workshop
participant’s view that economic and policy research in climate change is unlikely

3
4
5
6
7
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Likelihood of uptake
Potential
Benefits

3.2.1 Comment
The main points arising from the workshop’s Attractiveness assessment are:

High Attractiveness
• EPRO 1: Commodity Research, Market Analysis, Forecast & Policy Analysis
production was the most attractive area for research and analysis. Workshop
participants assessed this EPRO as having the highest potential benefit and in their
view once the outputs from the research were available (e.g. commodity forecasts
for the most important export crops) would be relatively rapidly taken up by key
stakeholders. This result is understandable as most developed countries spend
considerable resources to try and forecast both prices and trends and areas of
strength. Good information in this area is likely to increase the competitiveness of
Vietnam export crops.

ranking for likelihood of adoption is difficult to explain. On the one hand
development of free trade areas and reduction in tariff barriers for agriculture
products is likely to provide significant benefit, but on the other hand negotiation
and eventual implementation of such policies is often subject to a very long
negotiation process. In addition emergence of non-tariff barriers such as SPS tends
to inhibit adoption as smallholder structure of agriculture and the costs of
compliance of standards such as GAP are seen as disincentives for change.
Low Attractiveness
• Research into the Climate Change EPRO was seen almost universally by workshop
participants as having low attractiveness. This perhaps is surprising as climate
change is a hot topic in Vietnam and both the GoV and its international partners
have committed large financial and technical resources to address climate change
issues. The role of agriculture economic and policy research into climate change
was seen by participants as being low compared with all other EPROs.
3.3 Feasibility
Relative feasibility is a realistic estimate of the likely contribution research would make
to achieve the potential impact. It is determined by plotting research and development
Economic & Policy Research Priorities
9
potential against research and development capacity. The Figure below summarises the
workshop results.

27
Workshop Output - Feasibility
1. COMMODITY RESEARCH, MARKET
ANALYSIS & FORECAST
2. NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL
ENVIRONMENT
3. RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER

Commodity Research Market Analysis and Forecast (EPRO 1) and Rural
Development (EPRO 6) was considered by the workshop participants as the areas
where research was most likely to have the greatest contribution. EPROs 1 & 7 are
different, but complementary or to a degree interdependent. Clearly the
participants view was that improved market intelligence and market access will
have significant economic benefits. Although there has been significant investment
in rural development, perhaps one interpretation that could be placed on the high
potential for research in this EPRO is that the impact of past interventions needs to
be analysed and policies and investment in rural development in the future may
need to be broader, including the development of rural institutions and services.
• The potential for research to contribute in the other four EPROs (2, 3, 4 & 5) were
similarly ranked and were lower than EPROs 1, 6 & 7). To some extent this is
Economic & Policy Research Priorities
10
understandable. For example in Research, Technology Development & Transfer
(EPRO 3), there appears to be little further to be gained from research – the issue is
implementation of service delivery mechanisms that enhance the impact of current
investments in research and extension.
R&D Capacity
• There is a view that research capacity could be strengthened in all EPROs.
However the resource available to improve capacity in all EPROs is limited. The
main issue is what are the priorities for research capacity development?
• Capacity development should also be aligned with research priorities and for
EPROs that lie above the diagonal line, feasibility (research outputs) could be
improved by an increase in skills and resources.
• It seems clear from the workshop output above that if research capacity in EPRO 7
(International Economic Integration & Market Access) could be significantly
improved then the feasibility of research in this EPRO would be much improved.
Usually Ministries of Foreign Affairs (and Trade) have responsibility for the
negotiation processes involved in this EPRO, but many countries have dedicated

r
o
n
g

E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
S
e
le
c
t
iv
e E
m
ph
as
i
s
Limited S
u
p
p
o

11
5 Recommendations
The participants clearly stated that the level of future investment should focus on the two
most important EPROs:
¾ EPRO 1: Commodity Research, Market Analysis and Forecast (highest
investment)
¾ EPRO 6: Rural Development
As research resources become available the majority of additional resources should be
directed towards these two EPROs. One strategy worth considering is to maintain current
levels of investment in all other EPROs but as additional research funding becomes
available (as in the 2011 indicative budget) almost all additional funds could be directed
towards the two highest priority EPROs.
5.1 Research Concepts
Broad Research Concepts for each EPRO were presented at the workshop. For high
priority EPROs the main focus of the research concepts were:
5.1.1 Commodity Research, Market Analysis & Forecast

Research Issues Objectives Expected Outputs
Commodity
Databases
(Rice, Coffee,
Rubber, Pork, Tiger
Prawn, Catfish
To build a full commodity
database for 6 priority
commodities, including
incorporation and use of
international databases.

Database and commodity profile (domestic &

commodities. This is major content in the program.
Policy Recommendations should focus on land,
production, market supporting policies

Economic & Policy Research Priorities
12
5.1.2 Rural Development
Research Issues Objective Expected outputs
1. Rural Institution
Development
To understand the main
drivers for successful
development of rural
institutions and their
contribution to rural
development
Policy & strategy advice to improve the effectiveness and
impact of rural institutions on rural development
including:
¾ Decentralistion
¾ Socialization
¾ Autonomy
¾ Private Sector investment
2. Rural
Infrastructure
Development
To determine the impact
to date of investment in
rural infrastructure and
recommend future

development in rural
areas and the key drivers
for successful rural SMEs
Policy and strategy advice to increase the number, range
and success of rural-based SMEs including:
¾ Foreign owned
¾ Joint stock companies
¾ Locally owned and managed
¾ Services provided and access to services
5. Rural Investment To understand the reasons
for low investment in
rural development and the
barriers to increased
investment from local and
foreign sources
Policy and strategy advice to encourage local and FD
investment in rural development including
¾ Removal of disincentives
¾ Incentives
¾ Increased local and FD investment
6 The Next Steps
The suggested next steps are:
1. Revise the Research Concepts for the two high priority EPROs.
2. Prepare a long-term (3-5 year) Research Project Proposal for each high priority
EPRO including an indicative budget.
3. Prepare promotional material suitable for attracting the interest of funding
agencies.
4. Present the research case, including the process of prioritisation, to potential GoV
and external funding agencies to secure funds for implementation.